> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 04:43:49 -0400 (EDT) > From: Christopher Hicks <chicksat_private> > > On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Ryan M. Ferris wrote: > > > Gigabit throughput is still best achieved by a switched bus architecture > > and custom ASICS or other real-time micro-kernel OS. The shared bus > > archictecture of even the fastest PCS and gigabit NICs will never be a > > match for dedicated hardware in processing traffic. > > Bull. I heard the same things about 10M and 100M. PC's will catch up. The classic argument seems to be that dedicated-ASIC-based firewalls have at least a theoretical performance advantage. Various people have been saying, for example, that Checkpoint's days are numbered because stuff like Netscreen performs much better. Now Checkpoint has commissioned a test that purports to show their product performs better than "dedicated hardware" from Cisco and Netscreen. I would like to have people's opinion on this test, in part because my observation of Tolly Group test reports is that they're one of these "guns for hire" that never writes a bad review for someone who pays them for one. I just skimmed through it and one thing that stuck out in one of the tests was that they were testing only UDP traffic, which struck me a bit strange because that has to be a small part of typical VPN traffic. http://www.checkpoint.com/products/connect/tollyreport.html -- Philip J. Koenig pjklistat_private Electric Kahuna Systems -- Computers & Communications for the New Millenium _______________________________________________ firewall-wizards mailing list firewall-wizardsat_private http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Oct 16 2002 - 11:56:18 PDT